Simply Seerah writes: Today we find that many Christians have this type of Superiority complex when it comes to other nations and religions. But the reality is that the West evolved from Secular ideas rather than Biblical ones. Things like women's rights, and equality were never really considered something which correlates with the Bible. Actually quite the opposite. For this reason, I wanted to share with our viewers the Top 10 Historic quotes we have from famous Church Fathers and Reformers. These were men who had, throughout the course of History, helped shape Christianity into the religion it is today.
Video also uploaded here
British Muslims Protested to Defend Jesus p
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Conversions to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Wednesday, 10 May 2017
Monday, 8 May 2017
BBC Documentries on Islamophobia and Discrimination Against British Muslims
BBC undercover mini-documentary on British Muslims being discriminated against in the job and housing markets.
Also uploaded here
BBC mini-documentary on Muslims facing Islamophobic abuse online (Twitter)
Also uploaded here
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Conversions to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Also uploaded here
BBC mini-documentary on Muslims facing Islamophobic abuse online (Twitter)
Also uploaded here
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Conversions to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Sunday, 7 May 2017
Is Limited Atonement Doctrine Taught Clearer than the Trinity Doctrine in the New Testament?
Video also uploaded here
The same obviously can be said of Jesus and his disciples: they had no knowledge of the Trinity as the Trinity doctrine was a construct that came about through later philosophy – it came about after Nicaea.
My questions to Sam have to be, why has he not rejected the Trinity belief? If he has, is he willing to go on public record? I understand he was racially abused for simply teaching the Bible’s age of consent but if Sam is consistent and has rejected the Trinity doctrine along with Limited atonement then he should be brave enough to make this known.
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
I am not sure whether there is something in Dr James White’s claim of Sam Shamoun repudiation of Limited Atonement theology was out of spite following Sam’s acrimonious break-up with James. We can’t be sure although Sam has previous form. Sam has publicly stated a Muslim, many years ago, who embarrassed Sam and attacked Christianity was a springboard for his anti-Islam polemics, which have now occupied decades of his life, so there is something in Sam’s character where his theology is moved by emotion – specifically negative emotions.
In British churches there is, as Dr Joseph Shaw speaks of, an emasculation of men in churches and I would hazard this makes many prone be excessively emotional. In the churches/church groups that I visit I do feel some men in those churches do seem to more feminised/emasculated than average British men.
Having said all that, Sam Shamoun is faced with the very real question of why has he not renounced the Trinity doctrine yet? If he can now reject Limited Atonement which has a stronger and clearer superficial case to being Biblical than the Trinity then why not denounce the Trinity as unbiblical ?
Trinitatarian apologists contend for the idea of the Trinity by amalgamating a number of Biblical verses together and reading into those meshed verses the doctrine of the Trinity including the limit of three persons despite Christians now openly admitting there is no limit of three in the Bible as well as introducing the concept of personhood which has also been shown to be an external thought added to the New Testament as there is no Biblical differentiation between being and personhood . In a nutshell, what the Trinity advocates do, is eisegesis not exegesis via imaginative hermeneutic gymnastics. It’s awfully unconvincing.
On the other hand, the proponents of PR/LA may point to one individual in the Bible and a specific verse to argue for their doctrine. They argue John teaches this and point to, what appears on the surface level, three pretty clear verses.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. [John 15]
And John 10:
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Is Sam going to claim that Jesus believes Muslims are his friends? Sam, do you believe your god died for us and considers us his friends?
Sam, does this mean, you believe the man you consider to be God believes Muslims and other non-Christians whom you believe to be the sons of Satan are the friends of your god? Do you not think there’s a contradiction here? And what of your prophet (Paul of Tarsus) who cursed people who did not believe the same as him, do you believe he was cursing the sheep and friends of Jesus?
And what about the Jews and Romans who were purportedly behind the crucifixion of Jesus, do you believe they were Jesus’ friends and Jesus died for them?
Notice how the advocates of Limited Atonement can argue simply from certain NT texts and can ask questions which make the Christian opposition appear contradictory.
Trinitarian apologists cannot argue simply from the NT. They can’t point to a specific verse nor can they point to a specific author or individual in the Bible to argue for the doctrine of the Trinity. So much so that even Paul of Tarsus isn’t even thought of as a Trinitarian:
If in addition we think of Paul as an orthodox Christian, we will only misinterpret him that much more. He’s living in a period where he’s not thinking in a Trinitarian manner. The idea of the Trinity hasn’t been conceived yet. His letters will have Jesus Christ in them; they will have God the Father in them; he will talk about the Spirit of God. Those are the textual origins that will be used to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity, but Paul’s not thinking in a Trinitarian way. [Paula Fredricksen]
Having said all that, Sam Shamoun is faced with the very real question of why has he not renounced the Trinity doctrine yet? If he can now reject Limited Atonement which has a stronger and clearer superficial case to being Biblical than the Trinity then why not denounce the Trinity as unbiblical ?
Trinitatarian apologists contend for the idea of the Trinity by amalgamating a number of Biblical verses together and reading into those meshed verses the doctrine of the Trinity including the limit of three persons despite Christians now openly admitting there is no limit of three in the Bible as well as introducing the concept of personhood which has also been shown to be an external thought added to the New Testament as there is no Biblical differentiation between being and personhood . In a nutshell, what the Trinity advocates do, is eisegesis not exegesis via imaginative hermeneutic gymnastics. It’s awfully unconvincing.
On the other hand, the proponents of PR/LA may point to one individual in the Bible and a specific verse to argue for their doctrine. They argue John teaches this and point to, what appears on the surface level, three pretty clear verses.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. [John 15]
And John 10:
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Is Sam going to claim that Jesus believes Muslims are his friends? Sam, do you believe your god died for us and considers us his friends?
Sam, does this mean, you believe the man you consider to be God believes Muslims and other non-Christians whom you believe to be the sons of Satan are the friends of your god? Do you not think there’s a contradiction here? And what of your prophet (Paul of Tarsus) who cursed people who did not believe the same as him, do you believe he was cursing the sheep and friends of Jesus?
And what about the Jews and Romans who were purportedly behind the crucifixion of Jesus, do you believe they were Jesus’ friends and Jesus died for them?
Notice how the advocates of Limited Atonement can argue simply from certain NT texts and can ask questions which make the Christian opposition appear contradictory.
Trinitarian apologists cannot argue simply from the NT. They can’t point to a specific verse nor can they point to a specific author or individual in the Bible to argue for the doctrine of the Trinity. So much so that even Paul of Tarsus isn’t even thought of as a Trinitarian:
If in addition we think of Paul as an orthodox Christian, we will only misinterpret him that much more. He’s living in a period where he’s not thinking in a Trinitarian manner. The idea of the Trinity hasn’t been conceived yet. His letters will have Jesus Christ in them; they will have God the Father in them; he will talk about the Spirit of God. Those are the textual origins that will be used to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity, but Paul’s not thinking in a Trinitarian way. [Paula Fredricksen]
The same obviously can be said of Jesus and his disciples: they had no knowledge of the Trinity as the Trinity doctrine was a construct that came about through later philosophy – it came about after Nicaea.
My questions to Sam have to be, why has he not rejected the Trinity belief? If he has, is he willing to go on public record? I understand he was racially abused for simply teaching the Bible’s age of consent but if Sam is consistent and has rejected the Trinity doctrine along with Limited atonement then he should be brave enough to make this known.
Why Islam
Saturday, 6 May 2017
Thoughts for Ed Atkinson on Christopher de Bellaigue Podcast Interview
Ed Atkinson asked for some thoughts on a BBC History podcast on Islamic Enlightenment:
If a Muslim would like to listen to this and give their thoughts, I'd be delighted. It is history and the basic message is that the recent developments in Islam, some less welcome to all, are in large part the result of awful British colonial behaviour. I was convinced.
Note: I have not read Chris' book. I'm sure it would be very informative and a useful learning resoruce. Chris is a smart and informed scholar.
I found what was said in the interview a little ironic and perhaps even a little myopic in that (perhaps) Christopher de Bellaigue was looking through a particular lens. One lens. A Western lens.
Christopher de Bellaigue states there was a liberal movement in Egypt (and the Ottomon Empire) before WW1; the society was going towards more liberal interpretations of personal freedoms and autonomy. WW1 and its aftermath stopped that movement in its tracks. As Britain and France created new countries it led to more nationalist views within Muslim communities.Iran and Turkey went towards illiberal directions, according to Christopher de Bellaihue, in an effort to fend off authoritarian westernisation and subjugation.
Some thoughts that stemmed from listening to Christopher de Bellaigue:
Firstly, self-preservation is a natural reaction to perceived threats. Just look at North Korea, there’s a reason why that country is like it is – the regime feels its autonomy, self-determination and control is under threat from external players.
2ndly, I found it ironic that Christopher de Bellaigue spoke about imperialism and colonialism as grinding this progression to more liberal values to an abrupt halt as the very reason the liberalisation of Egypt began was precisely because of colonialism. This movement of liberalism began at the onset of Egypt’s rediscovery of the West, or rather the West’s discovery of Egypt. Napoleon in the late 18th century set the ball rolling. Napoleon’s conquest of Egypt led to Muhammad Ali encouraging the translation of French books into Arabic and this, alongside the colonist-colonialist psychology, would have sparked this fascination with the West. Albert Memmi has a good book on the dynamic between the colonizer and the colonized.
3rdly, what about Europe, how did Europe, Germany in mind, drift away from socialism into fascism in the early 20th century and culminate in Nazism? Economics, right? Perhaps, in his book de Bellaigue talks about this and to be fair war and carnage from WW1 would assume an economic downturn anyway but it would be nice to explore whether liberalism does not thrive in societies and communities facing economic struggle. Is liberalism the purview of those who have?
4thly, Christopher de Bellaigue talks about personal freedoms and a liberal view of such but what does he mean? What are personal freedoms, they are relative to a society. The deeper meaning of freedom would be to be free of one’s desire but the meaning in our culture of individualism is for one to be able to act on one’s desires no matter how base or petty they are.
5thly,when he talks about a closing down of cultural avenues have we ever thought these folks were just sick of being exploited and wanted self-dignity so they looked at their societies and thought these societies aren’t working and wanted to go back to a more older and nostalgic view of the past hence a move back to conservatism? And what about the idea of power working when the people are complicit, either passively or actively. Is this shift not the will of the people over there or must one think for them and think oh well they don’t really want to live like that, they want to be able to party it up every Friday night in an area like Soho or Brixton. Or to give a SC example, one of Jay Smith’s colleagues/students claiming the Muslim women wearing hijabs are oppressed yada yada...[imposing one’s condescending thoughts on them]...without ever thinking whether they are happy to wear such.
6. de Bellaigue is anti-foreign (military) intervention – great. But that does not stop Britain and other Western powers from arming certain groups and countries to effectively intervene in another state’s affairs. Perhaps it does if the West became completely isolationist. Are WE willing to see a reduced living standard and the costs of commodities increase? That’s what would happen if our country stopped exploited weaker countries. Do you want to pay over the odds for an iPhone? 2000 quid, or more? Who knows how much! We would be coughing up more if the Congo (?) had real autonomy of its resources.
7. How about our society’s lurches to a more liberal society? They have not worked. The Occupy Movement? Gone. What do we have, the rise of the Alt-Right, Donny Trump in the White House and the rise of far-right politics which has become mainstream in Europe now. Can somebody explain what’s going on here? We cannot even explain how the West has seen its liberalism stunted. Or can somebody explain it?
9. What is Freedom? Maybe we are going over ground I’ve rambled about above. Plato argued most ordinary people don’t have a strong rational nature therefore need to be constrained by those naturally more rational. Bye bye “personal freedoms”. But nobody has complete freedom. Everybody is under some legal, political, societal, emotional and physical constraint. This idea of freedom is all relative. Who gets to define what freedom is? And having less freedoms does not necessarily mean one loses their ability to exercise free will.
9. What are universal values? What is universality? A development or growth in humanity? There will be various views on what would be a growth in humanity. In the study of ethics there is no agreement on how to define “good”. I think it is colonisation of the mind and cultural imperialism for a Westerner to start talking about somebody in Egypt and imposing their view of values on them (not saying de Bellaigue was doing or implying that). We live in a society of hyper-individualism which is alien to many people in the East. Has this hyper-individualism which was propelled by the hippy movement done Western society much good? We live in broken societies. Was it Thatcher who said society in no more and we now have individuals and families?
Friday, 5 May 2017
Sam Shamoun: James White Has A Shallow Understanding of the Old Testament
Has Sam Shamoun ever thought the idea of the Trinity is not mentioned in the Old Testament hence why folks like James White do not try to use the Old Testament to argue for the Trinity doctrine?
Perhaps they know they will get mocked by people who have some knowledge in this field if they do argue like Sam Shamoun.
Bart Ehrman Mocks an argument which Nabeel Qureshi uses for the Trinity idea
Also uploaded here
Shocking: Nabeel Qureshi's Arguments for the Trinity Exposed by Dale Tuggy Clips
Also uploaded here
James White would lose credibility if he tries to argue for the Trinity idea from the Old Testament. No serious-minded and informed listener would find those arguments convincing.
Andy Bannister rebuked
Analysing Richard Lucas' Heretical Understanding of Trinity
Solas' Andy Bannister Presenting Intellectually Dishonest Arguments on New Testament Reliability
Christian Missionaries and Pakistan's Valentines Day Ban
A Muslim's Thoughts on Solas CPC's + Other Christian Campagins Against Same Sex Marriage in the UK
Did Ignatius Teach the Trinity?
Thoughts on the Hamza Myatt, Liz Mooney, Chris Claus and Jonathan McLatchie Exchanges
Thursday, 4 May 2017
For Christians who say Allah is a Deceiver- a Message from James White
Video also uploaded here and here
54. And they [the disbelievers] schemed and Allah schemed;
and Allah is the best of schemers.
This text is often cited as evidence of some kind of
dishonesty on Allah’s part, but the honest reader recognizes that just as God
sent a lying spirit into the mouths of false prophets as a means by which He
brought just punishment on those who rebelled against Him (1 Kings 22:33), and
just as the New Testament warns that those who refuse to love the truth will be
caused to love a lie (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11), this text could well be saying that
when people scheme against Allah and His ways, they will find Allah is
significantly better at that activity than they are. [James White]
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
A Christian Reverend on Islam's View on the Crucifixion
‘Historically it is very difficult to dispute the qur’anic verse since presumably it would not be possible for observers at the time to tell the difference between Jesus being crucified and his only appearing to be crucified – unless what is suggested is that someone else was crucified in his place.’
Rev Professor John Hick, Religious Pluralism and Islam, lecture delivered to the Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought, Tehran, February 2005.
Sourced from Blogging Theology
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Conversions to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Rev Professor John Hick, Religious Pluralism and Islam, lecture delivered to the Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought, Tehran, February 2005.
Sourced from Blogging Theology
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Conversions to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Wednesday, 3 May 2017
More Radical Secularism From 'Christians'
Are Westernised Christians aware of the Remarriage Laws in Deuteronomy 24? Trinitarian Christians believe this is from Jesus yet you still hear Christians like the lady in this video making comments which argue against what the Trinitarian religion believe Jesus revealed in the Old Testament.
Deut 24: “Suppose a man marries a woman and later decides that he doesn't want her, because he finds something about her that he doesn't like.[a] So he writes out divorce papers, gives them to her, and sends her away from his home. 2 Then suppose she marries another man, 3 and he also decides that he doesn't want her, so he also writes out divorce papers, gives them to her, and sends her away from his home. Or suppose her second husband dies. 4 In either case, her first husband is not to marry her again; he is to consider her defiled. If he married her again, it would be offensive to the Lord. You are not to commit such a terrible sin in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
Adnan Rashid Racist Abuse Condemned - Jay Smith's Pfander Films' Radicalised Viewers
Are Jay Smith and Beth Grove of Pfander Centre Radicalising People to Hate Muslims?
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Conversions to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Deut 24: “Suppose a man marries a woman and later decides that he doesn't want her, because he finds something about her that he doesn't like.[a] So he writes out divorce papers, gives them to her, and sends her away from his home. 2 Then suppose she marries another man, 3 and he also decides that he doesn't want her, so he also writes out divorce papers, gives them to her, and sends her away from his home. Or suppose her second husband dies. 4 In either case, her first husband is not to marry her again; he is to consider her defiled. If he married her again, it would be offensive to the Lord. You are not to commit such a terrible sin in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
Adnan Rashid Racist Abuse Condemned - Jay Smith's Pfander Films' Radicalised Viewers
Are Jay Smith and Beth Grove of Pfander Centre Radicalising People to Hate Muslims?
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Conversions to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Tuesday, 2 May 2017
Adnan Rashid Racist Abuse Condemned - Jay Smith's Pfander Films' Radicalised Viewers
Muslim apologist Ustadh Adnan Rashid had a debate with a lady who works for Jay
Smith’s Pfander Centre for Apologetics, Elizabeth Lizzie Schofield. The debate
was on divorce in Islam. Strangely enough Pfander Films do not have the debate video uploaded as I write but they did upload a video entitled After
Debate Discussion. I’m not entirely sure why they have not uploaded footage of
the debate – one would think the debate footage would be the primary focus. SC
Dawah Channel (an excellent and recommended resource for Speakers Corner video footage) has the entire debate uploaded here:
part 1 and part 2.
I recommend you watch the actual debate rather than The After Debate Discussion which was haphazard and was a typical SC dialogue where both sides angled for opportunities to talk. Again, I am a little miffed to see the actual debate has not been posted (yet?) by Jay Smith’s team especially considering Adnan did a good job in clarifying the misunderstanding on the part of Pfander and Lizzie Schofield.
Nevertheless, the After Debate Discussion gave us another insight into the nature of a noxious element of those who follow Pfander Films. The comments on the video were replete with racist abuse and even included a veiled threat towards Muslims.
Notice the 21 likes! Calling Muslims savages is a way of
saying Muslims are animal-like. Using the word “import” also dehumanizes Muslims
alongside otherizing Muslims as folks who are not part of Western society when
in reality the majority of Muslims in the West are born in the West. Racists
say the same thing about Afro-Caribbean people. They used to, and some still do, say it about Jews.
Again likening Muslims to animals. This time this person uses the Bible support his hateful views on Muslims!
More equating Muslims to animals. More sentiment suggesting Muslims don’t belong in London (and the West in general). This idea that all Muslims pitched up in the West from a dessert is ridiculous. I wonder if this person in Texas (?) knows Jesus (p) is a Middle Easterner.
This idea of Muslims following the devil is ridiculous but
it aids propaganda in setting up a hierarchy of human value. Of course if you
believe a group is satanic then you’re going to be less inclined to care when
you read about a bunch of them getting blown up in the news as collateral
damage or the target of terrorist thugs. Or even when a group of them drown in
the sea while trying to flee war, oppressive regimes and/or economic hardships. On a personal level
this attitude hinders one from having a non-pejorative relationship with
Muslims in daily life.
What I always find baffling with this accusation from the “Christian”
camp is how it opens a Christian up to serious questioning of their own faith
tradition and community. For instance, Islam’s zero-tolerance stance on alcohol
is better than Christianity’s you-can-drink-as-long-as-you-don’t get-drunk
stance; we now know even moderate intake of alcohol is linked to some cancers and
alcohol by its very nature is so difficult to control in order to avoid a level
of tipsiness which lowers one’s inhibitions (leading to anti-social behaviour
or speech) and with each sip it’s incrementally more difficult to avoid
complete drunkenness . The question here for a Christian with such a depraved
view of Muslims is why are Muslims who you believe to be led by the devil
following a religion which has better teachings on alcohol than Christian? It’s
a difficult question for the Christian. A related question could be why dopolls show Muslims to be better disciplined sexually than Christians if Muslimsare following the devil?
This is an old form of racism: against ethnicity or in this
case nationality. Adnan, if I’m not mistaken is of Pakistani origin. This
sentiment was clearly not isolated to one individual - 4 likes!
Notice all the likes! Pfander Ministries have previous form here. This is not thefirst time where one of their viewers expressed views in wanting to boot Muslims out of Europe. This type of rhetoric was experienced by Jews
and Irish - in the late nineteenth century
political powers in Britain tapped into the growing rhetoric against Jews and
Irish leading to a restrictive Aliens Bill in 1904 (See Owen Jones’ Book
Chavs). Right wing rhetoric can influence politics – this is one of the reasons
why Islamophobes are so vocal. Again we are talking about a new form of racism
and discrimination which has to be given a name, the word "Islamophobia" is at the head
of the queue right now.
I cannot stress enough how the inertia of Muslims in
Britain, Germany, France and Scandanavian countries will allow an a relatively unchecked
platform for Islamophobes to influence political powers. Muslims need to get politically
active – the easiest way to do this is to raise awareness of issues and talk
about this type of stuff. Chatham House’ssurvey publicised what every reasonably thoughtful person would imagine: those more
educated and those who have interactions with Muslims in real life are less
likely to hold Islamophobic views. As Muslims we need to start talking about
these issues with Non-Muslim friends and colleagues – folks who would be more
trusting of you than an anti-Muslim/Islam hate preacher on the internet. Don’t
allow hate preachers to cloud your friends’ minds with anti-Muslim/Islam prejudice.
Sadly a lot of Muslims have and continue to accept this
prejudice against them as something that is part and parcel of living in a
Western society. This should not be the case. If Jewish, Irish, Black and LGBT movements were able to impact discrimination
and hatred towards their respective people Muslims can work towards this
reality with respect to Islamophobia. Working together with Non-Muslims to raise awareness of
Islamophobia unashamedly is key. All this right wing talk about Islamophobia
being a buzzword of Political Correctness which delimits boundaries of
criticism of Islam is red herring. Smart people should be able to see through
it. Anti-Judaism polemics in the West would have contributed to Anti-Semitism:
the classic example being that of Jews
having a less loving idea of God (thus in turn planting seeds in the minds of distrusting people in Christian Europe of Jews being less loving which ultimately watered the ground for Anti-Semitic blood libels to spread in Europe - even in Norwich!
How do folks ameliorate Christian attitudes towards Muslims?
An easy step is to call out the hate-preachers within the
Christian community. Sure, I am aware of
intimidation tactics Pfander have used in the past but Muslims need to be
willing to report abuse and Islamophobia to the authorities without trepidation.
Pfander Centre have been propagating anti-Muslim rhetoric and they have been
proscribed by universities and other forums according to Lizzie Schofield forIslamophobia whilst simultaneously considered to be extreme by other Christians.
As you can see, there’s already a significant and politically active number of
Non-Muslims who are speaking out against Islamophobia and what they deem to be
toxic elements within Christian preaching communities. These are folks Muslims
can join hands with.
Note: I may not have time to do a separate post on what was Jay Smith's and Dave's distasteful use of purported European anti-Muslim immigrant sentiment via the Chatham House survey, a video which manage to evoke at least one viewer to spew the old kick-Muslims-out rhetoric. Here's a blog I wrote on why that survey cannot be used by Islamophobes in the way they may think they can use it.
Are Jay Smith and Beth Grove of Pfander Centre Radicalising People to Hate Muslims?
Cenk Uygur Proves Mulims Are not More Violent than Christians
A Few Thoughts on Jonathan McLatchie's Arguments for the Holy Spirit
Solas CPC Rebuked by Muslim
Pfander Ministries Blog on Hijab by Lizzie Schofield
Mike Licona Rebuked by Muslims: Spreading Deceit About Shk Ahmed Deedat
Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran
Refuting Christian Fundamentalists Who Say Islam is from Devil
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Thoughts on Lizzie Schofield's blog on Pakistan's ban of Valentines Day
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Conversions to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Are Jay Smith and Beth Grove of Pfander Centre Radicalising People to Hate Muslims?
 |
| A comment on a recent Pfander Films video |
Are Pfander Ministries' Jay Smith, Sarah Foster, Beth Grove and Hatun Tash contributing to Islamophobia?
First and foremost we should mention we aren’t talking about Muslims only here. Non-Muslims consider Pfander Centre to be Islamophobic. Lizzie Schofield in a blog entitled Islamophobia vs Islamocriticism (March 2) acknowledges this openly and she admits her group has been barred from speaking at at certain venues because Pfander Ministries is considered to be Islamophobic:
But still, the term ‘Islamophobia’ is chucked at us all the time, by liberal Westerners as well as by Muslims. This taint has kept us from universities and other public forums, and hindered many others from supporting our work out of fear
Justin Brierley acknowledges there are non-Muslims who consider Pfander Ministries to be “extreme”:
“There are people out there, Christians as well, who see you guys [Pfander] as kind of extreme” – Justin Brierley, Challenging Muslims with the Gospel, 12 August 2018, Time Stamp 32.00
Jay Smith fear-mongering
I understand Jay Smith attempts to radicalise and manipulate his followers by over-exaggerating the threat from Muslims. He is even on record saying “I expect for Muslims to kill me someday” See here
He has even gone so far as to point at Muslims from his ladder and say you (Muslims) are meant to kill me (and kill all Christians) [he adds that’s what it says in your Book]. Time Frame 2.05-2.15 also see 3.20 for a similar comment
How can Jay Smith not be contributing to Islamophobia? He’s otherizing every Muslim as somebody to fear. This sets panic and fear into the wider population which in turn is the ignition for hatred – hatred of Muslims!
Infantilizing Muslims Jay Smith and his colleagues talk down to and infantilize Muslims.
This is seen through the manner which they talk to Muslims which seems to be predicated on Jay Smith’s belief that being loud, boisterous and confident when talking to Muslims is equated with a strong argument in Muslim cultures! See 1.05 onwards
Jay Smith uses far right tactics of exaggerating (lying) about areas where Muslims live in the UK.
He did this with Harrow (an area in London), Smith claimed Muslims had banned ham in Harrow and he can’t buy ham in Harrow any longer. This is obviously a lie, he can go to a number of supermarkets in Harrow and find ham. Jay telling porkies about ham in Harrow
Provocative right wing video discussions
Jay Smith riles people up via provocative video discussions such as “Why do Europeans not want any more Muslims” so much so that his viewers leave hateful comments such as:
“I want Europe to kick out all Muslims. We ether clear them out now by repatriation or we wait and then will have to kill them in the streets.” See time stamp 2.05
Jay Smith [Time Stamp 0.35] talks about 4 “friends” of his who are “confronting Islam”. One of them was Geert Wilders. Geert Wilders has encouraged his supporters to chant racist slogans against Moroccans. Geert Wilders also said it was unacceptable for the Hague, Amsterdam and Rotterdam to be majority non-White. See the video for the relevant bits of Smith and his “friend” Wilders.
The above video also has information on one of the other people who he described as his “friend”, Anne Marie Waters (somebody who has been described as a bigot and a racist as well caught lying about Muslims for political reasons). See the same video above from 5.30.
Lizzie Schofield’s rude comments towards Muslims
Perhaps Lizzie’s attitude with Muslims is influenced by Jay Smith. Elizabeth Schofield says:
“you guys [Muslim men] for some reason if you look at women lustfully the women have to cover themselves up, there’s no kind of sense that you have to exercise any self control”. See 0.50 onwards
A comment from Ibn Issam:
I don’t know what more it takes to be labeled a “Hate Group.” If Pfander ministries was saying the same things about Jews, or blacks, or even Irish, no one would stand for it, and they would have been called out as a hate group along time ago. It is an injustice, that such a bigoted organization can direct so much hate at Muslims and still be considered by so many to be an acceptable “missionary” organization.
One must ask the question, “Is such producing such shameful and disgusting hate towards Muslims the core aim of Christian Missionary work in the field of Christian-Muslim Relations?” Where is the love? It is about time that the Pfander group, and those like them are defunded, shunned, ridiculed, and sidelined from the discussion. Good Christians themselves, should be the ones leading in the fight against such Islamophobic organizations that give their religion a bad name around the world.
Refuting the Claim Petra was the Qibla Before Mecca
Justin Brierley, do you Believe Jay Smith's "Hyperbole" Excuse?
Posts advising Lizzie Schofield
Christian Evangelical Propagandizes Distortion of Bill in Turkey
Lizzie Schofield Ignoring Facts and Reasoning - Child Brides
Police Report Claim and Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Conversions to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Monday, 1 May 2017
James White Questions David Wood's Wisdom
David Wood attention-seeks by reposting empty “death threats” he receives from people behind usernames on YouTube which in all likelihood seem to be from kids. I say they are empty because Wood goads them and tells them where he will be. Wood, to this day, this is a strong indication those “death threats” are not serious. Of course reposting them helps with bringing in the donations as some Christians are raised on Christian martyrdom stories and think this is a sign of true evangelism.
Video also uploaded here
David Wood Attacks Ramadan. Acts 17 Apologetics Refuted
James White's Comments Rebuke Arguments of Jay Smith and David Wood
How Jay Smith, Beth Grove, Usama Dakdok and David Wood contribute to the apostasy of Christians
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Video also uploaded here
David Wood Attacks Ramadan. Acts 17 Apologetics Refuted
James White's Comments Rebuke Arguments of Jay Smith and David Wood
How Jay Smith, Beth Grove, Usama Dakdok and David Wood contribute to the apostasy of Christians
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Cenk Uygur Proves Mulims Are not More Violent than Christians
Murder rates in Muslim countries are lower than those in non Muslim countries.
Chatham House Survey and Islamophobes on European Attitudes Towards Muslim Migrants
Chatham House produced a survey on European views concerning immigration from Muslim-mainly countries. Does this poll really tell us what Europeans think about Muslim immigration?
The poll in itself does not offer us a comparison of the European respondents' views on Non-Muslim immigrants and Muslim immigrants. The poll statement carried significant overlaps into anti-immigration in general (regardless of faith) thus to use this poll as a blanket statement supporting anti-Muslim sentiment within Europe would be simplistic and somewhat misleading. The poll statement was: ‘All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped’
Attitudes toward immigration in general need to be factored
The poll in itself does not offer us a comparison of the European respondents' views on Non-Muslim immigrants and Muslim immigrants. The poll statement carried significant overlaps into anti-immigration in general (regardless of faith) thus to use this poll as a blanket statement supporting anti-Muslim sentiment within Europe would be simplistic and somewhat misleading. The poll statement was: ‘All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped’
Attitudes toward immigration in general need to be factored
There is already a anti-immigration feeling within many of the countries polled by Chatham House. Italy, France, Germany, Spain and the UK feature amongst the top five anti-immigration countries in general where respondents felt there were so many foreigners in their countries that it did not feel like home.
Thus with the nature of the poll statement we are unable to ascertain whether the respondents were generally against immigration or specifically against Muslim immigration.
Interestingly enough, Britain, which ranked 5th in the anti-immigration survey with 37% of respondents feeling the UK does not feel like home anymore due to the numbers of foreigners, had 47% of respondents in the Chatham House poll strongly agreeing with stopping further Muslim migrants. 37% and 47% are in the same ball park. Could we argue a bulk of the respondents in Chatham House’s poll would have said the same about non-Muslim immigrants from say Africa or Asia? We cannot discount this possibility. I’d argue the same applies for Germany where 53% agreed with stopping further Muslim migration whilst having 44% of respondents feeling there are so many foreigners in Germany that it does not feel like home for them.
Racism: anti non-white immigration
The same could be contended for Poland in that the Chatham House Polish respondents weren’t necessarily illustrating specifically an anti-Muslim immigration sentiment. There could be a number of factors at play such as a lack of jobs in Poland (many Poles migrate to Western Europe for work) thus having an influx of immigrants to increase the competition for jobs in Poland would be an issue. One of the other factors could be a betrayal of racism. In a 2013 survey we note two thirds of Poles were against non-white immigration. For the average Pole a stereotypical image of a Muslim would feature a non-white skin colour thus further muddying the conclusions we can draw from the 71% of Polish respondents who wanted to ban Muslim migration into Poland:
According to a study in 2013 by the Centre for Research on Prejudice – a professional academic centre at the University of Warsaw – as many as 69% of Poles do not want non-white people living in their country. [Source]
Jobs and Muslim friends reduce Islamophobia
A Pew Survey showed large percentages of people in Greece (65%), Spain (50%), Hungary (72%), Poland (665) and Italy (72%) had unfavourable views of Muslims.
Contrast this with Britain, France and Germany; all of which polled with less than 30% of respondents with unfavourable views of Muslims.
Could this be due to Britain, France and Germany having greater Muslim populations, meaning the non-Muslim populations of these three countries have interaction with Muslims on a day-to-day basis thus form their views based on real life experiences rather than the respondents in the other countries who are less likely to be forming their views on interaction with Muslims due to the lower numbers of Muslims in their respective countries?
This theory ties in with Chatham House’s observation on demographics of those polled. Older people were more likely to be in favour of banning Muslim immigration than younger people:
Our findings also reveal how, across Europe, opposition to Muslim immigration is especially intense among retired, older age cohorts while those aged below 30 are notably less opposed
A possible explanation for this could be younger people having more contact with Muslims than older people thus older people are forming their views heavily on media coverage which can be quite sensationalist and/or Islamophobic.
We do need to think about the way the media can influence somebody about a group of people who he/she has had little contact with.
Again, economics comes into play again. Germany, France and the UK are richer countries and have more jobs and resources to go around so Muslims are not seen as competition for jobs or usurpers of resources (housing and welfare) in comparison with the countries with higher numbers of respondents holding negative views of Muslims.
Do brain cells and education alleviate Islamophobic views?
Education is a factor here. Those who are university educated were found to less likely to oppose Muslim immigration. Chatham House states:
There is also a clear education divide. Of those with secondary level qualifications, 59% opposed further Muslim immigration. By contrast, less than half of all degree holders supported further migration curbs.
This may not necessarily be a pointer to somebody having better cognitive and education levels as being less Islamophobic. It may just mean that somebody who is university educated has a broader experience in interacting with people who are different to them – that includes interacting with Muslims.
Conclusion
Critics of Muslims and Islam who are looking to use the Chatham House survey in their work against Muslims should ask themselves what the data is actually saying and whether it can be used with clarity in point-making. I don’t believe anything firm can be drawn from the data due to the statement used in the poll.
At the same time we must not bury our head in the sand by denying Europe has an Islamophobia issue. Terrorist attacks carried out on European soil by Muslims have inevitably led to a heightened air of Islamophobia across Europe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)